Ian Narbeth

... Read More

One of the main reasons for having selective licensing is to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). Councils expect landlords to take action to deal with tenants who are anti-social.
When s21 evictions are abolished, landlords will find it all but impossible to deal with ASB. We can write a stiff letter to the tenant. We can inform them who has complained (we may need the victim's consent or else fall foul of GDPR). We can ask the victim if he or she is willing to give evidence, after a wait of many months for a court date. Fat chance! What we cannot do is give the victim (or the Council) any assurance that we will be able to evict the tenant.... Read More

"However, research by epIMS suggests that upgrading a property could cost £8,000."

This is extremely misleading for at least two reasons. Taking the mean average by calculating the total cost of upgrading all required properties and dividing by the number of properties may give a figure of £8000. If it is done by using the EPC figures they may be out by a factor of between 2 and 10. If a tenant is living in the house and it is full of possessions, it is almost impossible to install under floor insulation or internal wall insulation. It also takes no account of redecoration which can be £300 to £600 per room. If tenants have to be moved out temporarily and their possessions put into storage that is an additional, unaccounted-for, cost.

With an average, some will be above and some will be below. It is quite possible that, even if (which is doubtful) the £8000 is correct, a significant percentage of properties will cost £25,000 to £50,000 to upgrade. That is uneconomic. Moreover, the cost of labour and materials will likely rocket as we approach 2030.

It is no carrot and all stick for landlords with this Government and unless there are exemptions that landlords can be confident of securing where a property cannot economically be increased to a C rating, expect the supply of rental properties to decrease.... Read More

... Read More

... Read More

"The impact assessment says: “It is likely that landlords will pass through some costs of new policies to tenants in the form of higher rents – to offset those costs and maintain a degree of profit."
The language is telling. "A degree of" suggests a small amount, perhaps contrasted with no profit at all but not much. What other businesses are expected not to pass on costs?
"A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesman told The Telegraph,: “The evidence shows that landlords value good tenants – and are therefore less likely to raise rents for sitting tenants."
Yes, but. Not all tenants stay long term. Making all tenancies periodic and allowing tenants not to commit to the tenancy for more than two months will not encourage keeping rents low.

“Landlords will also only be able to raise the rent once a year using the existing section 13 process and our reforms will empower tenants to challenge an unfair rent increase at the first-tier tribunal.”
Suspending rent increases whilst matters wind their way slowly to the tribunal will not lead to lower initial rents.
"It is considered good practice in the property industry to increase rents annually to account for inflation and stay in line with market rates."
Yes, and prudent landlords who in the past might not have increased rents for "sitting tenants" (the writers of the assessment don't seem to realise how terrible those words are to landlrods who remember the Rent Acts) will now do so as often as they can.
If you increase costs and increase risks, business people demand more money to compensate. That is not difficult to understand unless you have only ever worked in the public sector and read the Grauniad as your main source of news... Read More

Peter, I think a simpler way to look at it is that a taxpayer whose top rate of income tax is 40% pays extra tax of 20% of the amount of his mortgage interest. For a 45% taxpayer, it's 25%.... Read More

... Read More

It is correct that "a possession order is not the legal end of the process.". It can take months to get bailiffs to evict.
A possession claim is not the start of a landlord's problems. If I do not pay for my hotel I will be sued immediately and the hotel's loss is for the period I stayed there. The principal debt does not increase. If a tenant does not pay, the tenant may stay in occupation increasing the debt every day. Landlords are "involuntary creditors" in such circumstances.
It is bad enough that landlords have to wait for 8 weeks' arrears of rent to accumulate before even commencing a section 8 claim. That will be increased to 13 weeks by the Renters Rights Act. Even if the delay were only 8 weeks that would still be 21 weeks of arrears and then whatever additional period to get the bailiffs round. The figure of 23 weeks rather than 8 for getting to a hearing is more accurate.

Take into account also that disgruntled tenants who know they are being evicted won't look after the property and may even damage it deliberately,

Many landlords face a loss equivalent to a whole year's income.... Read More

Thankfully, nobody takes the NUS seriously. Even the thickest Labour MP can work out that if a landlord is expected to grant credit to someone with no job, no income and no prospect of one (apart from part-time work whilst at college), the landlord will want a guarantor.

When I was at university in the 1980s it was made clear that if we had any debts at the end of our course, our creditors could come forward and we would not receive our degree!... Read More

If a private landlord "does not have the money" does that excuse not paying recompense? Ah, thought not.... Read More

Mark, I agree with you. Sad to say it was an allegedly Conservative Government that did most of this. As a group of voters, private sector landlords are (or perhaps, now, used to be) the most conservative-leaning people in the country apart from Tory party members themselves. We were stabbed in the back and betrayed by those we thought our friends. We were vilified and our legitimate rights and interests cast aside.
The Chancellor imposing an additional 2% surcharge has added to the pain but it was the Tories who started it. Labour must be thinking: "Well if the Tories give their own supporters such a damn good kicking, we should do so as well" and why wouldn't they? Soak the "rich" and virtue-signal to your supporters that you are helping tenants, even though in reality they are making matters worse by pushing up costs.
I worry what comes next. Perhaps rent controls or the removal of any mortgage interest relief?... Read More

... Read More

"The guarantor has to be informed of any changes to the tenancy agreement." Yes, but it depends on the wording of the tenancy. Tom Jenkin was perhaps fortunate.

If there was "a clause in the AST saying [the tenant] had to get permission from the landlord for any pets" then that was in the purview of the guarantor when the guarantee was signed. We have not seen the reasoning in Mr Jenkin's case but if the consent of the landlord could not be unreasonably withheld, it is hard to see why the guarantor was excused.

When the Renters Rights Bill comes into force and such a term is implied, the result might be different.

The best course for landlords is to draft guarantees with "no discharge" clauses and to make it clear the guarantor remains liable notwithstanding variations to the tenancy.... Read More

As Mark Twain didn't quite say: "The reports of the death of the PRS are exaggerated." Yes, the Budget is bad and things are going to get worse for landlords and also for tenants. No, section 21 is not the cause of homelessness but its abolition will likely lead to more homelessness. The 2% hike in SDLT will put up the price for investors but that will feed through into higher rents. Crusader is right that "it’s always tenants that pay."
As a professional landlord, I intend staying in the market. There will always be a demand for rental property and landlords will be there to fill it.
One little-discussed problem is the difficulty of selling residential property with a tenant in situ. With commercial property (I am a solicitor specialising in that area) it is normal to buy and sell a tenanted property and having a reliable income stream is valuable. The law provides a balance between the rights of tenants and landlords. With resi, the risks are much greater and all the legislation has been skewed in tenants' favour for the past 10 years. (So much for levelling the playing field. The law is tilted heavily in tenants' favour.)

If you are unfortunate to take on someone else's dodgy tenant, you are stuck for months, face financial ruin and kick yourself for not buying with vacant possession and choosing your own tenant. Wanting to sell to an investor is not a ground for eviction. Whether we will see more buyers willing to take on someone else's tenants remains to be seen. On the other side of the coin, no landlord will have more than two months guaranteed income as tenants can leave on a whim.
Paradoxically, if Labour want to help tenants, they should reduce the SDLT where a property is sold subject to a lease to an occupational tenant and also protect landlords from massive arrears. Unfortunately, for ideological reasons they are doing the opposite.
I expect to have higher costs but higher rents and some capital growth as Labour fail to hit their target of 1.5 million new homes.... Read More

Dear Tay
On the basis of the limited information you have given, it is impossible to answer.

Is the agent also the letting agent? Is not, how are they responsible for damage? Even if they are, it will be hard to make them liable. Did they fail to take up references or received bad references but failed to inform you? Did they accept a tenant on benefits without your agreement?

You write that they "refused to move out" the tenant. That's not how it works. If the tenant does not want to leave at the end of the contractual term, the landlord needs a court order to evict them.

You say the "keys were left with a neighbour with no handover/takeover done". Did the agent ask the tenant to do this or did the tenant just leave? I cannot see how the agent is responsible for the lost rent.

You seem to have unrealistic expectations that having an agent means you will have no problems. Welcome to the reality of landlording.... Read More

She may be in breach of the tenancy depending on its terms. Not every hole made in a wall or staircase will be a breach of the AST. Even if you get over the first hurdle and it is a breach, you have to prove financial loss caused by the breach. Until you get to the end of the tenancy and the tenant fails to remove the stairlift and make good any damage caused, I doubt you will have a claim for financial compensation.

I doubt the landlord will get much sympathy from the judge if the tenant's partner is registered disabled. Whether the stairlift was purchased outright or is on a credit agreement is irrelevant.

I am astonished at the number of people on this thread jumping to adverse conclusions, suggesting benefit fraud and assuming the worst. No wonder tenant lobby groups get a good hearing from MPs if tenants are treated like criminals!

Tracey (the OP), you now have plenty of contradictory advice to go on. Good luck!

I've said my piece and don't intend to add to this.... Read More

... Read More

"The point is the tenant should have asked BEFORE carrying out this type of installation."

I acknowledged this point but people are jumping the gun here suggesting benefit fraud and proposing issuing a s21 notice. Unless there is other evidence that something fishy is going on, I would do nothing. Inviting the council to come and inspect is not a move I would advocate.... Read More

That's pure speculation. If the tenant is illegally subletting or sharing, that may be grounds to start an eviction.

The tenant's reason that "it’s for a person she cares for who isn’t on her tenancy apparently it’s her partner who has an adapted bungalow round the corner on full state benefits and who has a car" seems entirely legitimate.... Read More